Nadezhda

Earle Sanborn wrote:
Gents, got the message

Earl if you got the message, then you would also start dealing with all of our replies to your fake science and badly interpreted science. That isn’t a bowling ball..it is a ball of bullshit, no, a ball of verbal diarrhea.

Imagine if I went to a Christian forum and wrote a 10 paragraph long post full…[Read more]

Earle Sanborn wrote:
Ladies and Gents, real science has come a long way from Darwin’s time

Earl. You’ve been repeatedly called out for cut and paste trolling, making contentious claims and ignoring our responses and for proselytizing. Respect the rules of this forum and the principles of rational debate…or get the hell out of here.

Simon, I clearly claimed several times here that mammals for example are emotional like us to some extent and they feel distress and have unpleasant experiences.

Mammals do feel emotion, we are mammals ourselves and our emotions come from the same development of other mammals. However, humans are unique in that we internalise our emotions.…[Read more]

I think humans have the right to assume they are special. They are the only species which suffer internalized pain and who are self aware AND able to express it to one another, who self realise and who can ponder their own existence (human existence) even if it’s often pointless. Because if it’s true, then they are also the only species in which a…[Read more]

In fact, almost none of our typical claims is in itself justification for denying God:

Nature is extremely cruel and suffering is common:

There still could be a God. It’s just an asshole of a God.

Religious institutions do horrible violent cruel things

Since God is an asshole…is that really a surprise?

Christians preach against one cruel thing…

[Read more]

No Earl that’s not how critical discussion s work here. Don’t type out an enormous list of contentious claims…ignore the numerous cases of people responding to your claims and then type out yet another pile of questionable claims. Deal with our challenges to your original thread first. Return the respect for the users here who took time to read…[Read more]

Yeah. In fact, my favourite display in that museum is the slow motion enactment of butterflies evolving, no, emerging from peanut-butter jars. It really forced me to view the debate over whether evolution is true or an illusion. So many insightful insights into the varying views on how evolution may or may not make sense in terms of the truth of s…[Read more]

Earle Sanborn wrote:
In fact, nowadays even evolutionist experts accept that the variations they call “microevolution” cannot lead to new classes of living things-in other words, to “macroevolution.”

This is the worst of the endless highly flawed statements you’ve made. This argument doesn’t make any sense, you’ve misused the terms microev…[Read more]

Distress may not be on the emotional level of pain in humans…but distress is still a thoroughly unpleasant experience for any mammal. They may not internalise their pain and discomfort the way we do…but they can become emotionally scarred for life if they suffer a brutal physical or social trauma. More social mammals when cut off from family…[Read more]

All mammals experience a notable level of fear and anxiety, even ones who have few predators like elephants and lions, still have to worry about mating, food, pack relations, their young etc. Most mammals have rather ugly ends. Humans, are frequently utter nervous anxiety filled nutcases.

Its true rodents need to be endlessly on their guard, its…[Read more]

Dawkins pointed out in his fabulous book the selfish gene that when you ask about advantage…ask “for whom”. The advantage is usually in the interest of obsessive gene replication (and lots of it). Most rodents, for example, live life in endless fear, nervousness, stress and anxiety. For good reason. This is an unpleasant way to live you entire…[Read more]

Yeah but Reg…come on. You only have to take the Catholic faith seriously. Because it’s been so successful. You cannot deny the success it has brought the European world…and then later to Africa, the Americas and places like the Philippines and Papua New Guinea, all very successful places. There is obviously a correlation between the success of…[Read more]

Matt wrote:
it was created in that reality (to describe that reality)

The universe was created in a mathematical reality to be explained in its mathematical reality?

_Robert_ wrote:
Because it seems like they are saying the former, not the later and I for one can not sign up for that.

You should take it with a grain of salt here. This is mostly a response to people who try to find inherant meaning in the universe, its creation and your role in the universe. Mostly from those who believe there has to be a…[Read more]

Strega wrote:
@jakelafort saying the universe doesn’t care, is another way of saying it is unaffected, unmoved, and oblivious to the thing being referred to.

^^^^^^^ What Strega said  ^^^^^^^^^

Strega wrote:
Because ‘stuff’ is determinable, that doesn’t give our mechanisms of determination any objective status, outside of human comprehension.

Wow. Strega summed up my multiple endless paragraphs of babble…and she did it all in one sentence. Bravo!!!

We shouldn’t mistake the word for the object, the numbers for the phenomena, the model for the reality or abstract concepts and explanations for everything-and-all. That is…when we are answering existential questions.

If unseen had asked any other question then yes, most of us would agree, the universe works like clockwork, works very much in…[Read more]